How not to win hearts and minds . . .

Manic Moran

Eventually someone is going to get offended by most anything. Ever notice that warplanes don't have pin-up art much any more? It's gotten to the point of being explicitly banned by the RAF.

As for the Afrika Korps symbol, it's something of a martial history thing, and has been repeatedly used.

It was very common for US Marine units posted to the deset, for example, the Desert EGA.




A US Army Psyops unit used to have a variant:



My own brigade of the time, when we went to Iraq in 2003, had a symbol selected by the commanding general with stencils issued to all units with instructions to paint them on all the connexes. No complaints heard. Can't find a photo online, will edit this post and upload when I get home: I was sure to take a photo. (Instead of a swastika, the symbol on the tree was the 81st BCT insignia)

The palm tree is basically a universal symbol of a military in the desert. Here's a couple of US Army WWII versions.





Part of the whole military ethos is taking traditions from history and/or other militaries. Ever notice why the traditional world-wide colour for tankers is black? Red for military police? For someone to be 'disgusted' about the use of a commonly used symbol with the 'evil' bit removed and replaced with the official symbol of the military in question is, put simply, a total lack of a sense of perspective.

Over time, I'm sure every symbol, no matter how innocent, will eventually be hijacked for some evil use. Some history and the 'common sense' filter needs to be applied.

NTM

gizmo555

Manic Moran wrote: »

For someone to be 'disgusted' about the use of a commonly used symbol with the 'evil' bit removed and replaced with the official symbol of the military in question is, put simply, a total lack of a sense of perspective.

I guess it's all about context. The palm tree symbol and its association with the Afrika Korps would have gone completely over my head, but in a German army unit with that country's history and the consequent present day extreme sensitivity about overseas deployment of their military, I'd hesitate to call it an over reaction.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Some history and the 'common sense' filter needs to be applied.

Indeed. So going back to the original photo that I started the thread with, what on earth possessed those guys to think it was a good idea to use possibly the most instantly recognisable Nazi emblem after the swastika itself? Why cut such an obvious rod for your own back?

BlaasForRafa

Manic Moran wrote: »

Eventually someone is going to get offended by most anything. Ever notice that warplanes don't have pin-up art much any more? It's gotten to the point of being explicitly banned by the RAF.


Part of the whole military ethos is taking traditions from history and/or other militaries. Ever notice why the traditional world-wide colour for tankers is black? Red for military police? For someone to be 'disgusted' about the use of a commonly used symbol with the 'evil' bit removed and replaced with the official symbol of the military in question is, put simply, a total lack of a sense of perspective.

Over time, I'm sure every symbol, no matter how innocent, will eventually be hijacked for some evil use. Some history and the 'common sense' filter needs to be applied.

NTM

I recall hearing a story a few years ago about the US program to replace the old M1 helmet, apparently after going through various testing programs, the helmet shape they came up with was very similar to the german WW2 era steel helmet. Then (and there could be an element of myth mixed with reality in this) apparently changes were made to the back and side of the helmet to make it look less "germanic"

Wicklowrider

Poccington wrote: »

I hear a civilian company in the US are currently using the Afrika Corps palm tree as their insignia, minus the swastika. TO THE OUTRAGE BUS!

Manic Moran wrote: »

There was a bit of a furore a few years back when it was discovered that German soldiers in Afghanistan were using a variant of the Afrika Korps symbol on their vehicles. If I recall the general official response was "you're kidding, people are getting offended by this? OK, fine, in order to take the path of least resistance, we'll tell them to stop using it."

NTM

Can you honestly compare the Afrika Korps to the SS?
My Grandfather was 8th Army and captured by Afrika Korps. He was treated remarkably well until the Germans ran short of food. They then released their prisoners with a small food parcel and water and told them where their unit was, about half days march. Something tells me the SS would have had a different solution. I was interested in this stuff years ago purely because of the family connection. Don't recall anything negative about their conduct.

galwaycyclist

Wicklowrider wrote: »

Can you honestly compare the Afrika Korps to the SS?
My Grandfather was 8th Army and captured by Afrika Korps. He was treated remarkably well until the Germans ran short of food. They then released their prisoners with a small food parcel and water and told them where their unit was, about half days march. Something tells me the SS would have had a different solution. I was interested in this stuff years ago purely because of the family connection. Don't recall anything negative about their conduct.

Yes but does your reaction not prove the OPs point? If the idea of drawing comparisons between the Afrika Korps and the SS causes discomfort, why then would US Marines draw such comparisons on themselves?

Manic Moran

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I recall hearing a story a few years ago about the US program to replace the old M1 helmet, apparently after going through various testing programs, the helmet shape they came up with was very similar to the german WW2 era steel helmet. Then (and there could be an element of myth mixed with reality in this) apparently changes were made to the back and side of the helmet to make it look less "germanic"

The PASGT was America's standard helmet through the '80s and '90s, and was nicknamed the "Fritz" for a while.

Can you honestly compare the Afrika Korps to the SS?

Which SS? The Waffen SS consisted of some 38 divisions of combat troops including some of the best in the German military. The Allgemeine SS or SS-Totenkopfverbände were directly involved in the Holocaust.



Probably the most celebrated tanker in history, Michael Wittmann, was an SS soldier, there is no indication that he or his unit were anything other than consumate professional soldiers.

NTM

skelliser

A pack of psychopaths and murderers is more apt.

Why would anyone, especially military personal, want to associate themselves with a symbol used by the SS?

Granted there were a small few who were consummate professionals but the SS left a path of destruction and horror which no military serviceman should be looking to associate themselves with. They didnt start out as a military unit either they were more a paramiltary outfit set up when the Nazis got to power in the 20's/30's.

The vast majority of crimes against humanity carried out by the NAZI'S in WW2 were carried out by the SS.

Those of you trying to defend this would do well to read up on the SS.
Especially the antics of Rudolf Höss and Dr. Johann Kremer.

gizmo555

Manic Moran wrote: »

Which SS? The Waffen SS consisted of some 38 divisions of combat troops including some of the best in the German military. The Allgemeine SS or SS-Totenkopfverbände were directly involved in the Holocaust.

Probably the most celebrated tanker in history, Michael Wittmann, was an SS soldier, there is no indication that he or his unit were anything other than consumate professional soldiers.

I'm not sure I get the point here, so far as it relates to the thread topic.

Are you really saying that if the USMC unit concerned intended their emblem to echo the original SS one, that would be OK as long as they had the Waffen SS in mind?

If that's not what you mean, I would be interested in your views on their use of the symbol, especially given your experience in the US military.

Rawhead

The Waffen SS and the German mountain divisions are widely recognised as some of the toughest and fiercest soldiers in history. The Waffen SS did commit atrocities in France and there is no point in mentioning the eastern front as both sides sunk to inhuman levels.
The reality is you cannot take away from the fact that they were some of the bravest, most fearless and effective fighting units ever committed to battle. This is the SS that modern soldiers associate with and not the sonderkommando and the camp guards.
Not every German soldier was a ruthless baby killer and the vast majority were the same as their allied counterparts, kids fighting a war. Didn't prince Harry cause trouble a few years back when he wore a Afrika Corp uniform to a fancy dress. Ironic really as he is from German stock.

Manic Moran

gizmo555 wrote: »

I'm not sure I get the point here, so far as it relates to the thread topic.

The point is "why should people always take the negative association?"

NTM

gizmo555

Manic Moran wrote: »

The point is "why should people always take the negative association?"

In this instance, because it's completely automatic and involuntary. Your question reminds me of the old joke: "What's the definition of an intellectual? Someone who can listen to the William Tell Overture without thinking of the Lone Ranger."

The SS emblem used is so indelibly associated with that organisation that the large majority of people couldn't help but make the association. As for comments about the Waffen SS and how many of them were outstanding professional soldiers, does the cause for which they fought not make any difference? After all, the other defining characteristic of all SS members was that they formed what was in effect the military wing of the Nazi Party.

Rawhead

gizmo555 wrote: »

In this instance, because it's completely automatic and involuntary. Your question reminds me of the old joke: "What's the definition of an intellectual? Someone who can listen to the William Tell Overture without thinking of the Lone Ranger."

The SS emblem used is so indelibly associated with that organisation that the large majority of people couldn't help but make the association. As for comments about the Waffen SS and how many of them were outstanding professional soldiers, does the cause for which they fought not make any difference? After all, the other defining characteristic of all SS members was that they formed what was in effect the military wing of the Nazi Party.

The SS was a Guards company initially. It grew into a regiment and then the 1st SS Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler. It was a bodyguard regiment and throughout history Guards regiments have always held an elite status. The Praetorian Guard in Roman times, Napoleons Imperial Guard, the British Household regiments, all these have always attracted the brightest and best soldiers. The SS became the same and that's why we have the vision of the 6ft tall, blonde, blue eyed, Aryan master race. The truth is in the end they had Dutch, Flemish, Slovak and even Muslim SS divisions. The vast majority of SS soldiers had no more of a allegiance to national socialism than Churchill.

gizmo555

Rawhead wrote: »

The vast majority of SS soldiers had no more of a allegiance to national socialism than Churchill.

You're kidding, right?

galwaycyclist

Rawhead wrote: »

The vast majority of SS soldiers had no more of a allegiance to national socialism than Churchill.

Rolls around laughing

Rawhead

gizmo555 wrote: »

You're kidding, right?

Why would I be kidding. The troops in the main divisions like the Liebenstandarten and Das Reich might have been hardened national socialists initially but by 1943 there were dozens of SS division and as I said they included Flemish, Croats and Muslims, they even tried to form a British SS unit.
So while the popular history likes to portray the SS as a evil Teutonic force the reality is that they were recruiting the very people that they viewed as sub human in the end. The very thing that made them such a fierce fighting force resulted in horrendous losses and meant that they had to constantly replenish their ranks and as the war went on the pool of perfect Aryan candidates became smaller. This resulted in the foreign units and conscription into the SS. This wasn't a volunteer war, you fought or you were hung.
So before rolling around the floor laughing read a few history books.

galwaycyclist

Rawhead wrote: »

Why would I be kidding. The troops in the main divisions like the Liebenstandarten and Das Reich might have been hardened national socialists initially but by 1943 there were dozens of SS division and as I said they included Flemish, Croats and Muslims, they even tried to form a British SS unit.
So while the popular history likes to portray the SS as a evil Teutonic force the reality is that they were recruiting the very people that they viewed as sub human in the end. The very thing that made them such a fierce fighting force resulted in horrendous losses and meant that they had to constantly replenish their ranks and as the war went on the pool of perfect Aryan candidates became smaller. This resulted in the foreign units and conscription into the SS. This wasn't a volunteer war, you fought or you were hung.
So before rolling around the floor laughing read a few history books.

Sorry but I'm still rolling around laughing. To my knowledge much of the intake of the foreign SS units were fascist/anti-bolshevik volunteers. As to the racial purity, the Germans had no trouble with Dutch, Swedes, Flemings, Estonians, French etc. The Croats and Croatian Muslims were also to my knowledge considered racially suitable. There were French SS troops involved in the defence of the Reichstag at the end. Yes towards the end there was conscription into the SS - Gunter Grass being a famous example. However, the later presence of conscripts does not alter the fundamentally political nature of the organisation.

galwaycyclist

galwaycyclist wrote: »

As to the racial purity, the Germans had no trouble with Dutch, Swedes, Flemings, Estonians, French etc. The Croats and Croatian Muslims were also to my knowledge considered racially suitable.

Tut mir leid

Before I get accused of racial stereotyping I should of course have said "As to the racial purity, the National Socialists had no trouble with Dutch, Swedes, Flemings, Estonians, French etc."

Manic Moran

However, the later presence of conscripts does not alter the fundamentally political nature of the organisation.

It also doesn't alter the fact that they tended to be bad-ass military units with a pretty cool symbol. Allied combat troops likely didn't care as much about the political origins of the Waffen SS as much as the fact that if they discovered that they were facing SS units they would be having a tough fight against some of the best the German military had to offer, and the Germans could be pretty good to begin with.

The Iraqi Republican Guard were similarly a politically based unit, but they were also far and away the best units in the Iraqi military with the best equipment, training and motivation. It is not an incompatible concept.

Of course, not all politically based units were necessarily any good. Italian Blackshirt divisions, for example.

Incidently, I also think it's about time we 'reclaimed' the respectability of these symbols. I firmly believe, for example, that the US reintroduces the Swastikas on some of their old unit patches.

45th infantry division, for example, prior to having it changed in WW2.



NTM

Rawhead

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Sorry but I'm still rolling around laughing. To my knowledge much of the intake of the foreign SS units were fascist/anti-bolshevik volunteers. As to the racial purity, the Germans had no trouble with Dutch, Swedes, Flemings, Estonians, French etc. The Croats and Croatian Muslims were also to my knowledge considered racially suitable. There were French SS troops involved in the defence of the Reichstag at the end. Yes towards the end there was conscription into the SS - Gunter Grass being a famous example. However, the later presence of conscripts does not alter the fundamentally political nature of the organisation.

I agree 100%. What you seem unwilling or unable to see is that most military people have long been able to acknowledge that while the SS represented the most vile and evil aspects of the Third Reich, they were the finest fighting units of the war at the same time.
My view is that the kind of person who gets offended by this photo would probably be against the war anyway. The first people who will acknowledge the fighting prowess of another military unit are usually the people who fought against them.
One of the numerous ironies of the war was that Hitler stripped the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler of it's cuff band that bore his name in the final days of the war because he deemed that they had not fought hard enough in the defense of Berlin.

gizmo555

Manic Moran wrote: »

It also doesn't alter the fact that they tended to be bad-ass military units with a pretty cool symbol.

And they were so elegant too, with their Hugo Boss designed uniforms!

Honestly, Manic, are you having a laugh as well?

Rawhead

gizmo555 wrote: »

And they were so elegant too, with their Hugo Boss designed uniforms!

Honestly, Manic, are you having a laugh as well?

As Lemmy said "the bad guys always have the best stuff".

Why do you think that there is such a huge market for Third Reich paraphernalia, SS items especially.

galwaycyclist

Rawhead wrote: »

I agree 100%. What you seem unwilling or unable to see is that most military people have long been able to acknowledge that while the SS represented the most vile and evil aspects of the Third Reich, they were the finest fighting units of the war at the same time.

This thread is not about the SS dude its about the US Marines.

Rawhead wrote: »

The first people who will acknowledge the fighting prowess of another military unit are usually the people who fought against them.

There is a difference between acknowledging fighting prowess in private discussion and engaging in acts that will inevitably invite the accusation that you endorse everything they stand for.

Rawhead wrote: »

My view is that the kind of person who gets offended by this photo would probably be against the war anyway.

This is the whole point, the US Marines are ultimately answerable to the democratic will of the US people. They rely on the popular support of the US civilian population. Engaging in acts that threaten that support is dumb whatever your privately held perspectives on military history.

Manic Moran

gizmo555 wrote: »

And they were so elegant too, with their Hugo Boss designed uniforms!

Honestly, Manic, are you having a laugh as well?

Not really. The US military tends to consist of some of the more homophobic and conservative members of US society, yet Spartans are a very commonly used symbol of units. I had a 'Spartan' platoon in my troop. Are you suggesting that because they took the moniker and symbolism of some of the toughest fighters in history that they must be viewed as supporting homosexuality? Do you think the troops even care? Spartans were some of the most bad-assed warriors ever to shove a pointy stick up somebody's arse, that's as far as it need go.

engaging in acts that will inevitably invite the accusation that you endorse everything they stand for.

Why should we be afraid of that accusation? Take the swastika, is there anyone on the planet who doesn't know that it was a perfectly acceptable symbol before the Nazis appropriated it, or that in substantial parts of the planet's population it still is a perfectly acceptable symbol? Given we all know this, why are we afraid of returning it to the same level of common acceptance that it always had? Would we even be having this debate had the Nazis chosen a slightly less obscure-to-Western-society symbol of luck like a four-leafed clover?

NTM

gizmo555

If you think there's nothing wrong in principle with modern US military units using emblems like the swastika and SS runes, then we'll just have to agree to differ. What would be next? "Arbeit Macht Frei" over the gates of Parris Island?

To answer your question, I suspect the swastika won't reach it's previous level of common acceptance until Hitler and the SS are as remote in history as the Spartans are to us now . . .

BlaasForRafa

Rawhead wrote: »

I agree 100%. What you seem unwilling or unable to see is that most military people have long been able to acknowledge that while the SS represented the most vile and evil aspects of the Third Reich, they were the finest fighting units of the war at the same time.
My view is that the kind of person who gets offended by this photo would probably be against the war anyway. The first people who will acknowledge the fighting prowess of another military unit are usually the people who fought against them.
One of the numerous ironies of the war was that Hitler stripped the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler of it's cuff band that bore his name in the final days of the war because he deemed that they had not fought hard enough in the defense of Berlin.

Just a slight correction if you don't mind, the armband order was related to a failed counter-offensive around Lake Balaton in Hungary. The offensive was one of Hitlers late-war flights of fancy and was completely over-ambitious and fought over unsuitable terrain. Hitler thought the LSSAH's failure and eventual retreat a disgrace and ordered the cuff titles be removed from their uniforms.

I don't see why it isn't possible to acknoweldge the fighting prowess of a body of troops while also acknowleging their misdeeds. The Waffen SS became known for their effectiveness in attack and for their doggedness in defence. When you blend their aggressiveness with the traditional german mission-based tactics you end up with a force that could have an effect greater than numbers alone would indicate.

Rawhead

galwaycyclist wrote: »

This thread is not about the SS dude its about the US Marines.




There is a difference between acknowledging fighting prowess in private discussion and engaging in acts that will inevitably invite the accusation that you endorse everything they stand for.



This is the whole point, the US Marines are ultimately answerable to the democratic will of the US people. They rely on the popular support of the US civilian population. Engaging in acts that threaten that support is dumb whatever your privately held perspectives on military history.

These are young men in a combat zone using a symbol that they think is tough and cool, they aren't some political science group making a bold new statement.

galwaycyclist

Rawhead wrote: »

These are young men in a combat zone using a symbol that they think is tough and cool, they aren't some political science group making a bold new statement.

Exactly but instead of having the wit to come up with something new, something that stands for their achievements, they decided to come up with something that drags their own reputations down and drags down the reputation of their formation.

Not only that they risk dragging down the reputation of their predecessors.

Thats the funny thing about history - particularly within military units - you don't just make your own reputation you are charged with the duty of safeguarding the reputations of those who came before you. You also pass it on. What "inheritance" does this kind of idiocy give new people who come into this unit?

gizmo555

Rawhead wrote: »

These are young men in a combat zone using a symbol that they think is tough and cool, they aren't some political science group making a bold new statement.

They have superior officers who ought to have a clue, even if their men don't.

Rawhead

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Exactly but instead of having the wit to come up with something new, something that stands for their achievements, they decided to come up with something that drags their own reputations down and drags down the reputation of their formation.

Not only that they risk dragging down the reputation of their predecessors.

Thats the funny thing about history - particularly within military units - you don't just make your own reputation you are charged with the duty of safeguarding the reputations of those who came before you. You also pass it on. What "inheritance" does this kind of idiocy give new people who come into this unit?

What kind of unit do you think a scout sniper platoon in Marine Recon is. Do you think that they are trying to cultivate a softer, more user friendly corporate image. These are the sharp end of the spear and they are meant to be tough motherf'ers.
Units want a tough reputation and in the same way that the Para's were despised up north they were also feared. If I was commanding a body of troops in combat I would much rather have the unit that everyone is terrified of rather than than the one who has the nice guy reputation. If the enemy is afraid of you then he is less likely to attack you. This is even more important in guerrilla warfare.

That is the legacy and reputation I would like to pass on.

galwaycyclist

gizmo555 wrote: »

They have superior officers who ought to have a clue, even if their men don't.

Yes that whats been bothering me all along. Have they no officers with even rudimentry historical knowledge? I can't help but wonder that maybe somebody decided that these boys were just "no-count trailer park rednecks" and wouldn't it be real funny to give them just enough rope to go and hang themselves?

Then again never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.